UPDATE: Petition to Put 9/11 Probe on NYC Ballot Jumps Big Hurdle

Reading Time: 2 minutes
The Ruins of WTC Building 7

The Ruins of WTC Building 7

A group that wants New York City voters to authorize a new investigation into the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 9/11 won a significant victory this week.

The City of New York conceded that the High-Rise Safety Initiative has enough signatures to qualify its petition for an investigation of all high-rise building collapses since the 9/11 attacks. Any credible inquiry would include WTC Building 7. (For our earlier story on the initiative, please click here)

The victory comes as part of a trial which started last month. The High-Rise Safety Initiative sued to overturn the City’s determination that not enough of the signatures it collected were bona fide, and that the legal language of the petition is not valid.

So with the first reason for the City’s rejection out of the way, the High-Rise Building Initiative now must persuade the court that its petition language is legitimate.

If it can, then voters will decide on the November ballot whether the baffling collapse of Building 7 will get another look. That could answer nagging questions about the building, including how fires caused the building to fall to the ground so swiftly.

[box] WhoWhatWhy plans to continue doing this kind of groundbreaking original reporting. You can count on us. Can we count on you? What we do is only possible with your support.

Please click here to donate; it’s tax deductible. And it packs a punch.[/box]

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.


0 responses to “UPDATE: Petition to Put 9/11 Probe on NYC Ballot Jumps Big Hurdle”

  1. Verm-X says:


    […]Here are some of the sites we recommend for our visitors[…]

  2. uchsamin says:

    The same high level organization in our government who has lied to AMERICA about John & Robert Kennedy, flight 800, the demolition WT1 & 2 and 7,….and the pentagon being hit by a missile while flight 77 flew away to the same fate as MH370?)….is absolutely in control of this deception as well. No doubt. Hey government, some of us see right through what you are doing.

  3. Ed says:

    Why did NIST not include the molten steel in their report? How was nano thermite found in the World Trade Center dust?

  4. blueskybigstar says:

    Until we start putting the people in jail who have run this country into the ground, the economy will never recover.

    If this is done right, this is a good start. Finally.

  5. jdirtNOW says:

    Has anyone ever seen a digital re-creation of the damage sustained to WTC7?

    We might do well to view/compare something that shows exactly what kind of damage was done and/or why the fires started.

  6. Jon says:

    I always here ‘the BBC Reported the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early etc’. This can be easily dismissed by debunkers as simply the confusion of trying to understanding the events of that day as they were unfolding in real time. My point is: just keep the spot light of inquiry on the building itself.

    • edwardrynearson says:

      CNN and Fox also both prematurely reported the collapse of building 7 > you can go to youtube.com and find several videos of BBC reporter Jane Stanely reporting the collapse of WTC7 and see it clearly standing behind her > the BBC never explained this

  7. tomherzog says:

    Building seven of the World Trade Center complex came down late in the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001 some 8 or 9 hours after the Twin Towers (World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2) collapsed.

    Building 7 came down at virtual free fall speed, falling through the mass of most resistance, the lower floors of the building itself, with essentially no resistance seemingly in defiance of the laws of physics. (The sheer mass of the structure should have slowed or deflected the collapsing upper stories to the side.)

    Building 7 was not hit by a plane as were buildings 1 and 2.

    The collapse of building 7 was not addressed by the final official 9/11 commission report. Why not?

    The BBC reported that building 7 had collapsed some 2 or 3 hours before it actually fell. Was the BBC following a script?

    Building seven housed much Securities and Exchange Commission documentation and evidence implicating corporate insider trading and Wall Street fraud. All of that evidence was destroyed in the collapse. Coincidence?

    There are many, many legitimate unanswered questions pertaining to the strange events that occurred thirteen years ago; questions that have been studiously avoided by the main-steam-media. Isn’t it about time we begin to get some answers?

    • edwardrynearson says:

      I believe the BBC reported the collapse about 30 minutes prior to it actually collapsing

    • anonymous says:

      As a side note, all of the buildings came down at nearly free-fall speed. Nobody has ever explained that and if you ask that question, you are labeled a “nut-job.”

  8. editorsteve says:

    WTC7 had large diesel tanks fairly high in the structure, to fuel emergency generators for the mayor’s disaster command post. The tanks had been placed there over the objections of the NYFD. The structure itself was somewhat odd, with a lot of trusswork bridging the load-bearing exterior columns. BTW, it has been stated in earlier articles that 50% of the WTC1 and 2 tower load was borne by the core columns and 50% by the perimeter columns. Actually, almost all the load was borne by the perimeter columns. The core supported only core utilities (elevators etc). Selective quotes from the NIST report have been used to suggest that the towers should not have collapsed from jets’ impact and fuel. But the structural designer himself warned that collapse was inevitable and called NYFD to warn that firefighters should be removed no longer than 1 hour after impact. I predicted the same thing, watching the event live in the student lounge of Boston University journalism school. I was heard by dozens of people. Note that WTC2 collapsed before WTC1 even though it was hit later, absolutely consistent with the fact WTC2 was hit LOWER and weakened steel had to thus support a greater weight of building above the impact site. Highrise buildings are designed with only 30-60% reserve strength. (Construction Disasters: Design Failures, Causes and Prevention, McGraw-Hill 1984.) NIST and ASCE computer runs showed that WTC1 and 2 performed better than they were designed for.

    • edwardrynearson says:

      NIST reported there were no large diesel tanks

    • editorsteve says:

      The 6000 gallon tank for the mayor’s generators was very well documented. I also saw it myself in 1999 or 1998, on a technical tour. It was right next to the elevator core and supported above the ground floor on a 15-foot pylon so that it would technically be on the “lowest floor” and thus meet the letter of the fire code. While I was there, I also noted other diesel tanks in the basement (!) below that. There was an assumption that there were also small, undocumented tanks on the generators themselves, much higher in the building. Otherwise, with power out there would have been no way to continue pumping the fuel to start the generators.

    • Bob says:

      NIST determined that diesel fuel didn’t play a role in the collapse of WTC7:


    • editorsteve says:

      The original NIST document (available online) has a list of 4 major disclaimers in the first few pages. Disclaimer 4 says NIST was unable to determine whether there were certain modifications to the building after it was built. I reported on several of the dozen hearings that led up to the final 2008 report and witnessed firsthand the juggling and ass-covering. For instance, final NIST report said something like, “gee, the little fuel lines coming upstairs past floor 7 could not have fed the fire significantly,” despite the fact that the lines fed small (about 200 gallon) tanks. Never quote wikipedia… BTW, perhaps the most significant finding was that the long floor beams expanded (lengthened) to a degree that they created unforeseen and undesigned-for lateral forces on joints. The same issue applied to WTC1 and 2.

    • edwardrynearson says:

      my bad > NIST determined they played no part in the collapse > thanks for the correction

    • anonymous says:

      None of this matters; the building still collapsed at nearly free-fall speed, meaning the floors below presented no resistance to the falling. That’s interesting. WTC 1, 2 and 7 defied the laws of gravity and acceleration.

    • Bob says:

      Unfortunately 60,000 gallon tanks don’t burn any hotter than a 10 gallon tank – See Jonathan Cole’s videos like Sherlock Holmes eliminates the impossible:

      editorsteve: “The same issue applied to WTC1 and 2.”

      It’s hard to stomach those light long floor beams “expanding” and doing Anything to those W14 X 730 WTC core columns.

      It’s hard to keep up to the official experts that have been flip floping since 911:

    • editorsteve says:

      Not all the wtc floor beams were the lightweight built – ups from tubulars. Check out beams under equipment rooms and elevator sky lobbies. Also the 6000 gallon tank burns longer than the 10… Both burn hot enough, thank you.

    • Bob says:

      editorsteve: “Not all the wtc floor beams were the lightweight built”

      But the failure of lightweight floor beams led to produce the pancaking collapse? :

      editorsteve: “Both burn hot enough, thanks”
      How hot is enough? Hot enough to initiate a gravity-driven collapse?

      steve:”the 6000 gal tank burns longer”
      NIST determined that diesel fuel didn’t play a role in the collapse of WTC7.
      This fire test burned for 24hrs thanks:

    • anonymous says:

      That’s great propaganda but bear in mind, the huge explosion you saw…you know, that gigantic fireball? That comprised at minimum, 90% of the fuel in the tanks of the air planes. The slow burning was nothing but furniture, drapes, carpet, etc. Nowhere nearly hot enough to melt a building and cause steel to weaken and bend.

      Furthermore, free-burning kerosene (AKA Jet-A fuel), without an accelerant, only burns at around 600 degrees or less. Nowhere near enough to weaken the support structures. If it was, then every kerosene heater made would melt into a blob and burn the surrounding building down. Not to mention, the very jet engines that it powers would disintegrate since that DOES use an accelarant in the form of forced oxygen.

      There is plenty of evidence of hi-rise buildings burning for hours until they are virtually destroyed yet they NEVER collapsed. Do a simple Google search.

  9. disqus_iNSHgOse0O says:

    I read these comments about the oddities surrounding the 9/11 incident, but no one mentioned the fact that there was a Dpt of Defense had a security drill scheduled for that same day in which a plane was to be crashed into a building in the Washington DC. Initially there was some confusion about whether the twin towers planes were a real threat or part of the drill.
    Does anyone have more info about this strange “coindence?”

    • MB says:

      There were several or many drills on that day, depending upon who you believe. Webster Tarpley wrote a book, 9/11 Synthetic Terror, that listed dozens of drills. Be sure to get the latest edition, I think it’s the fifth, because each addition has more research.

      This subject is a real rabbit-hole of disinformation and cover-ups, so be prepared to do some serious digging if you want to become more informed.

    • disqus_iNSHgOse0O says:

      Thanks for the information Margaret. I have not researched 9/11 and have no plans to do so. If you have any info regarding security drills that has been confirmed as true, I’d appreciate hearing about it from you.

  10. Jeffrey Klement says:

    BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early– TWICE …


  11. Jeffrey Klement says:

    How Did They Know? Examining the Foreknowledge of …

    I’m a bit surprised nobody has mentioned this juicy morsel…

  12. yourmomzphat2 says:

    I watched “The New Pearl Harbor” videos on Youtube. After watching them it’s hard to believe that 19 guys with box cutters pulled this off.

    • PrMaine says:

      The official conspiracy theory about 9/11 – the one about the 19 guys with box cutters – never seemed right to me. Too much detailed information just appeared much too quickly and conveniently to be anything but a fairy-tale created for public relations purposes. I came to this conclusion within a couple days of 9/11 and have never much changed my mind.

      But those doubts don’t say much about what did happen and I remain on the agnostic side of things to this day. There do seem to be some good reasons to suspect there were some false-flag aspects to events but that doesn’t mean the Bush administration actively planned the attack. There are anecdotes that suggest Cheney or others had some active role in events, but no solid evidence – or investigation of the possibility.

      It occurred to me just today that the fact that the 19 hijackers were Saudi suggests that top officials of the administration were not in control of the attack or of the cover-story because it is hard to see why any U.S. administration would want to promote the idea of Saudi involvement.

    • Protonius says:

      PrMaine –

      You wrote: “… the fact that the 19 hijackers were Saudi suggests that top officials of the administration were not in control of the attack or of the cover-story…”.

      But by your own statement, quite the opposite may be true. I.e., what better “partner” to be “handling the controls” than the US’s (i.e., the Bush Administration’s) best, and “most untouchable”, and most reliable — and most relied-upon — friendly regimes?

      But even if your above assertion is correct, that assertion does not exclude either party from being a major player in generating the fateful events of that day.

      Just a thought.

    • PrMaine says:

      Except that the Bush Administration could easily have controlled the story of who carried out the attack.Someone in the administration identified those responsible to the press and could have named anyone they chose.

    • edwardrynearson says:

      The Saudi Royals are proxies for the Zionists > part of the Judaic State’s global war on terror puppet show

  13. sorgfelt says:

    The thing that gets me is that, even if the investigation were to proceed, they would not find any such collapses since 9/11 to study, unless they were controlled demolitions.

  14. Kyle Davinski says:

    The building in okc was blown in half and didn’t fall. It had to be demolished. I grew up with a girl who’s dad did building implosion and we got to watch every single implosion video they made in class. ALL 3 wtc buildings were imploded with controlled detention, absolutely no question.

    But the real smoking gun is the Pentagon.

    • DNA Explains It All says:

      The heaviest part of the plane making no marks? The disappearing wings, engines and fuel tanks? That “issue”?

    • Kyle Davinski says:

      Or any piece of a commercial airliner that disappeared upon impact

    • edwardrynearson says:

      not one identifiable serialized part from a commercial airliner was found

    • MB says:

      I am astounded at the number of intelligent and informed people who have never looked at the photographs of the Pentagon on fire that clearly shows there is no plane. Irrefutable proof.

  15. Trent says:


    • DNA Explains It All says:

      There certainly were “welding torch like” jets of molten steel shooting out here and there ahead of the collapse line. And rivers that remained molten in the debris for what a couple months? 1800 degree kerosene fires sure are famous for melting 3600 degree steel. Wanna buy a bridge? (quick before warm bird poo causes it to melt)

  16. Rudy Campilii says:

    I applaud the effort to have this hurdle overcome but I fear that another “hurdle” will quickly take it’s place. Let’s face it, there is never going to be an “official” investigation into the collapse of the these towers.

    • edwardrynearson says:

      and I don’t require one having learned what happened > maybe whowhatwhy.com could take a cold stare at these events and publish what it discovers?

  17. TomMullen says:

    I wouldn’t call the collapse of Building 7 “baffling.” When video of the other side of Building 7 (the side facing the north tower) is examined, you can see massive damage done to WTC 7 by debris falling on it from the North Tower. This is a lot of effort for a lot of years expended in the wrong direction. There are certainly questions about the government’s story on 9/11, but the collapse of WTC 7 is not a mystery.

    • Mike says:

      Paid Troll for disinformation

    • Beef Cake says:

      Got any proof? Pictures? Guess not eh?

    • Rudy Campilii says:

      Where is this video of the other side of Building 7,, you speak of? Obviously you TomMullen are not a troll? And if you are so sure it’s not a mystery that a 47 story building can implode in free fall speed into it’s own footprint. Then you couldn’t possibly have an objection into an investigation or a second look, could you? So let’s have another look, shall we? and let the cards fall where they will.

    • Where is this video of the other side of Building 7,, you speak of?

      Right here, courtesy of ABC News. It’s the footage from the network news coverage the afternoon of 9/11. At 31 minutes, you see WTC7: its south side shows signs of horrific damage, and smoke is gushing from the building. At 37 minutes, there’s another extended shot of WTC7, and the smoke is even thicker. This is still a couple of hours before the building’s collapse, and it’s already in bad shape.

    • whatwaysup says:

      ‘bad shape’. In ‘bad shape’ on one side of an 81 columned 47 storied steel frame high rise so it drops straight down at free fall?? All concrete flooring pulverized in mid-air….Not even creatioNIST report suggests the asymmetric damage created the symmetric free fall of WTC7. In fact it states the damage caused by debris from Number 1 had nothing to do with WTC7 coming down. It was ‘normal office furnishings fires’ Sham. Stick to the script.

    • Alvy Singer says:

      Very true and if the damage was done on the back side of the building then it would not have collapsed in it’s own footprint but rather crumbled over from the backside.

    • philip.dennany says:

      And a Real investigation, unlike the first whitewash politically selected commission that were not even allowed to view important evidence that was intentionally withheld, as well as underfunded.

    • sorgfelt says:

      Other than the fact that the very low probability that such damage would cause such a building to fall with even timing and symmetrically into its own footprint, the damage to building 7 from building 1 only occurred in the first place due to steel being explosively thrown from building 1 during its collapse, something that would only happen if building 1 was collapsed using explosives.

    • Jack Hamilton says:

      Can you possibly be serious? It was obviously controlled demolition and, further, how do you explain the BBC reporting WTC 7’s collapse 20-30 minutes prior to it actually imploding onto its own footprint or, the lack of plane debri, bodies, luggage etc. at both the pentagon and Shanksville and yet, a pristine passport or two are found at the sites! C’mon man, use your grey matter! You do have some, don’t you?

    • Jack Hamilton says:

      The 911 Commission was silent on the matter and NIST’s theory was admitted to be flawed by NIST and yet, you understand the undiscovered laws of physics that would be required for such a collapse! MORON!

    • Protonius says:

      To TomMullen –

      1. Please substantiate your assertion with verifiable, accessible-to-the-public, references.

      2. Please explain how you account for — or neglect to account for — the statement by WTC owner Larry Silverstein, in a PBS interview shortly after 911, that WTC7 was in such bad shape that he gave the order to “pull it”, i.e., to have it brought-down by controlled demolition.

      3. Please also explain how you account for — or neglect to account for — the several on-the-scene videos (all viewable at Youtube) of cops/firefighters, seemingly suddenly, as though responding to a command, ordering people to move away from WTC7 because, they (the cops/firefighters) said, the building was about to be brought down — and then, shortly following those orders, loud explosions, appearing to come from WTC7, were heard.

    • edwardrynearson says:

      it was brought down by well placed explosives

  18. Man on the street says:

    Building 7 is a big question for most fair minded observers. However, the bigger question is: after such dramatic destruction of the WTC and the 19 Saudi Muslim terrorist evolvement in such a major crime, the Bush administration refused to allow an investigation of that event! He had be dragged kicking and screaming after the victims families applied pressure on congress. The committee was given limited support and funds, and was shrouded in secrecy. Its report had 27 pages that cannot be revealed to the unwashed?

  19. NeilBJ says:

    No skyscraper has collapsed from fire. There are many videos on-line showing skyscrapers ablaze on many stories. None has collapsed.

    The pattern of collpase of the three World Trade Center towers is identical to the patterns observed when buildings are brought down by controlled demolition.

    The only questions for me are who installed the critically timed explosive charges, how did they accomplish the task and when did they do it?

    The fact that the NIST report didn’t even conisider controlled demolition is very telling.

    • Rocky says:

      Yep, boxes with self contained lithium batteries could have been put in place months or even years ahead, all timed to the millisecond to simulate progressive collapse later. Or even they could have been radio initiated. The whole thing really isn’t that complex to envision.

    • Rudy Campilii says:

      NeilBJ are you aware of the fact that George Bush’s brother owned the security company that magically got the contract to take over the security of the World Trade Center? I believe it was awarded to said brother’s company one or two months prior to 9/11. You just can’t make this stuff up.

    • You just can’t make this stuff up.

      Well, you just made that stuff up.

      Stratesec was the company Marvin Bush was involved with, but the firm had closed out their WTC project in 1998. Furthermore, Bush was only affiliated with the company until June 2000.

    • notalent says:

      Yes, Marvin Bush apparently left Stratesec in 2000 after seven years that included security contracts with United Airlines, the WTC and Dulles international airport. Marvin left for HCC, an insurance company that was one of the insurance carriers of the WTC. Cousin Wirt Walker stayed on at Stratesec which, according to its CEO, said the company had a…

      “completion contract” to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center “up to the day the buildings fell down.”

      Stratesec was bankrolled by the Kuwaiti royal family who shares financial interests with various Bush family members going back to the gulf war. I guess this could all be coincidental or serendipitous (for the Bush family) and the 911 commission didn’t bother to ask any questions nor did most major media outlets, so I guess we may never know. But it’s not “made up”. It’s a matter of Public Record.


    • edwardrynearson says:

      and WTC7 collapsed because of well placed explosives

    • sorgfelt says:

      For one thing, it has already been reported that there were white vans parked outside the buildings at night just after the cleaning crew had left during the two or three weeks before the event. While that is not normally enough time, I have seen an anonymous post by someone who claimed that he was paid a lot of money to replace all of the fire extinguishers mounted on the columns with fake ones containing shaped charges aimed at the columns. The shaped charges would make it unnecessary to bore into the columns to install explosives, and the fire extinguishers can be replaced quickly. Of course, wireless remote control devices would be used, further reducing the time needed.

  20. matagordagreg says:

    I wonder how many people live and work everyday in these dangerous high rise steel frame buildings ? At anytime thousands could die from office furniture fires. All of these buildings should be evacuated and abandoned until this problem is solved.

    • DNA Explains It All says:

      Yeah the things are dropping like flies.

    • tomherzog says:

      Irony doesn’t always come across in print. You are kidding, right?

      No steal core building, in the roughly 100 year history of building steel core skyscrapers, has ever fallen due to normal fires. (It would take blast furnace conditions to create a fire hot enough to melt the steel cores of skyscrapers such as the Twin Towers.)

      The architects who designed the World Trade Center are on record (one can Google it) saying they designed the buildings to take the impact of not just one commercial jet liner but several. One of the designers said the impact of a jet on the building would be the equivalent of a pencil being poked through the screen of a screen door; this would not cause the whole door to fall.

    • Divergar says:

      The steel beams did not melt. The a frames holding up the floors sagged due to the heat and pulled loose from their hangers, allowing the floors to fall. And due to the fact that the floors below were also compromised. It started a domino effect. Ask yourself. How many steel buildings. Have ever had fires on multiple floors. Across the entire floor. For that duration of time and at that heat.

      Plus, if you look at the collapse of the second tower. You would notice it collapses at the impact zone. And the top of the tower collapses on the bottom of the tower. With all the floors that failed in between compressing. And then the entire tower collapses.

    • matagordagreg says:

      Of course Tom , I have engineered many steel structures and know their capabilities.
      I design and build extreme high pressure hydrostatic pipe testers for the oilfield industries.

  21. the baffling collapse of Building 7

    It’s “baffling” that a building that had been pelted with debris from a falling skyscraper and burning out of control for several hours was in bad shape structurally?

    • Strike Three says:

      The building was not “burning out of control for several hours.”

      You are a liar, and clearly a government troll.

      If you want to have your nice little patriotic world view shaken to its foundations, go on YouTube and watch 911 Mysteries, by film maker Sofia Smallstorm. The film proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.

      If you don’t have the guts to at least watch a quality film on the subject, then go crawl back in your paid government troll hole.

    • It’s no lie, the building was on fire and in bad shape.

      Just past the 31 minute mark in this archived news footage from the afternoon of 9/11, you can see Building 7: its south face is severely damaged and the building is gushing smoke. Again at the 37 minute mark, the camera focuses on WTC7 and the cloud of smoke coming out of it is even thicker.

      I don’t know how you came to your understanding of my “nice little patriotic world view,” but if you’re interested in the facts, that news footage shows them for all to see.

    • Per Oskar says:

      How, do you suggest, would structural damage to one side of the building, local office fires (not one single full floor fire, and most of them probably at the south side) cause the building to collapse straight down (as it did for most of its descent) and apparently with there being ZERO structural resistance for over 100 feet/eight stories (gravitational acceleration, admitted by NIST, for 2,25 seconds)..? And they won’t even show us the computer model input data(!) so we can see how they allege it all happened. I think demanding reinvestigation is totally legitimate.

    • I don’t claim to be an expert on structural engineering or collapse mechanics. I just don’t see why it’s so baffling that a building that had sustained major damage from a skyscraper collapsing nearby and had been gushing smoke for hours on end finally turned out to be so structurally unsound that it collapsed.

    • NeilBJ says:

      Are you assuming that because the building collapsed it was structurally unsound, which is really poor thinking, or do you have verified evidence that it was structurally unsound?

      I doubt that even a structurally unsound building would collapse in a pattern identical to controlled demolition. It would bend and twist in some unpredicitable pattern and not completely collapse.
      What has to be explained – and it already has – is that a building can fall at free fall speeds for 7 seconds and end up neatly piled (relatively speaking) on top of itself.
      The pattern of controlled demolition is predictable because specially trained experts know how and where to place the explosive charges and detonate them in a critically timed sequence.
      There are examples of poorly placed or timed explosives and such buildings have toppled over rather than collapse upon on their own footprint.
      For me the burden of proof is upon those who deny that controlled demoliton is the cause of the destruction of WTC7.

    • Are you assuming that because the building collapsed it was structurally unsound, which is really poor thinking, or do you have verified evidence that it was structurally unsound?

      Both. Why is it “poor thinking” to conclude that the building collapsed because it was structurally unsound? The way it looked hours before it collapsed, with its south face perforated by debris and gushing smoke like a chimney (see 31:17 and 37:17 on the archived news footage), doesn’t count as evidence? The fact that hardhats were warning people away from the area and firefighters were worried about its condition by mid-afternoon don’t count as evidence? The fact that media outlets had been told in advance that the building was coming down (and the BBC jumped the gun by saying it had already come down) doesn’t indicate that its collapse was a foregone conclusion well before it came down?

      For me the burden of proof is upon those who deny that controlled demoliton is the cause of the destruction of WTC7.

      That’s convenient. Because the various videos that exist of the building’s collapse don’t support the notion that it was deliberately demolished either. You don’t hear any loud explosions that would usually accompany the controlled demolition of a huge skyscraper. You don’t see the “removal” of the stories that were supposedly not there to create resistance for the falling building. What you see is a giant structure collapse due to the thermal expansion of structural steel and the force of gravity.

    • Kevin says:

      Loud explosions – building 7


    • Protonius says:

      “Kevin” (above) had it right: View (and listen to) the Youtube clip at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKtU01qcZBM&feature=youtu.be&t=1m41s and you’ll have your answer about explosions heard re WTC7.

    • lew says:

      Your argument makes a lot of sense, but only if you ignore all of the evidence.

    • sorgfelt says:

      There were several eye witness reports of the required explosions. And one of the videos clearly showed the flashes of explosions on the columns surrounding the floors just before they collapsed. They were most definitely not gusts of air as the NIST has claimed.

    • Explosions at WTC7? So how come even in AE911Truth’s video of WTC7’s collapse, you can’t hear anything but a dull thud?

    • Beaumont Miles says:

      Shem… any thoughts on what Larry meant by ‘Pull It’… as by what you’re saying there’s no way he could be referring to a ‘controlled demolition’…

    • dutch says:

      No,you actually just see what you want to see. From the standpoint of scientific facts, what you “saw”, when broken down to facts and figures, couldn’t even remotely ever have brought down that building. Not even remotely, not ever. Not even close. Not even kinda close. Not under any circumstances. Not ever. These are the facts that people willing to examine and understand something other than what the TV tells them understand. And the distance between what these facts say and what you’ve concluded from what you ‘saw’ is the breadth of your own ignorance and denial.
      And that’s a fact.

    • Per Oskar says:

      It is baffling because of what I just wrote. WTC7 was damaged by impacting debris from WTC 1, and was clearly on fire – no question about that. But here’s what: Local, asymmetrical and incomplete collapses is one thing – what happened to WTC 7 (and yes, the two other towers as well) is something entirely different. There is – outside of the examples of the WTC on 9/11 – not one single example in the world of a multi story steel-framed building totally collapsing because of any other reason than intentional demolition (also, note that demolition companies don’t bring down steel-framed structures by means of the Verinage techique – which is sometimes used to demolish concrete structures – because you simply cannot sever and level a steel-framed multi story structure to the ground using the force of gravity alone). Acceleration at the rate of gravity means ZERO structural resistance, but even engineers and phycisits confronted with this anomaly many times shy away from talking about it becuase of the implications. They cannot explain it within the costraints of the official explanation, and neither can NIST (and they refuse to share their modelling data with the public because “it would jeopardize public safety”!).

      Now, honestly, have you really, really looked into this matter in so far as to actually review what NIST claims vis-a-vis what the professional engineers who refute the official investigation (and who so to speak put their reputition on the line in speaking out) point at?

    • If I had a dime for every amateur online who has told me exactly how a burning skyscraper should and shouldn’t collapse, Per, I’d have a nice pile of dimes. You choose to believe what your cherry-picked experts believe, and I’ll go along with the expert opinion that says that fire, thermal expansion of structural steel, and gravity can cause a building collapse like WTC7’s.

      There’s no evidence of the explosive charges that you say brought Building 7 down. Even though you claim the building fell at a rate that could only be achieved if there were no structural resistance, there’s no reason to think the structure was removed. It’s plain to see in the videos of the collapse, taken in broad daylight, that the structure was intact until the global collapse.

      Again, feel free to believe whatever you want. But realize that there’s nothing unreasonable about denying that WTC7 was intentionally demolished.

    • Per Oskar says:

      “If I had a dime for every amateur online who has told me exactly how a burning skyscraper should and shouldn’t collapse, Per, I’d have a nice pile of dimes.”

      I’m not referring to any amateurs. You get absolutely nowhere using such an argument. And of course, the number of amateur videos, likewise, has nothing to do with basic facts addressed by the engineering professionals and physicists that I do refer to.

      “You choose to believe what your cherry-picked experts believe”

      What’s the point of using the word “cherry-picked”? If I call Shyam Sunder and John Gross “cherry-picked”, then have I made a valid point? No, it’s irrelevant at best, possibly an example of intended mud throwing.

      “I’ll go along with the expert opinion that says that fire, thermal expansion of structural steel, and gravity can cause a building collapse like WTC7’s.”

      You’re free to believe whom or whatever you like. The burden of proof is on the side of those you choose to believe, and that side is not transparent, its model visualization does not match the real world event, and it contradicts Newton’s third law of motion (just three out of many issues to point at).

      “There’s no evidence of the explosive charges that you say brought Building 7 down.”

      Nowhere did I write *explosive charges* (even though its fully possible that such were used to bring down the building). There is, however, evidence of melted steel (FEMA, Appendix C).

      “Even though you claim the building fell at a rate that could only be achieved if there were no structural resistance, there’s no reason to think the structure was removed.”

      You are contradicting yourself; there’s all the reason in the world to believe it was somehow removed. Gravitational acceleration can only be achieved if all potential energy is used to accelerate the [falling part of] the structure – there’s no way around that basic fact (unless, or course, you wan’t to repel Newton). Even Shyam Sunder (the lead NIST investigator) himself makes the point perfectly clear:

      “Freefall happens only when there are no structural components below the falling section of the building.”

      The question now is: How does that happen in fire-induced collapse scenario? Sunder again gives us the correct answer:

      “Any natural scenario is going to involve a progression of failures and these don’t happen instantaneously.”

      The contradiction lies in that NIST must have both arguments at the same time.

      “realize that there’s nothing unreasonable about denying that WTC7 was intentionally demolished”

      It might appear reasonable to believe NIST – until you review their investigation. Such was the case for me for many years. I find no reason whatsoever to flatly believe what they say (and don’t show us).

    • sorgfelt says:

      There are many more credentialed experts claiming controlled demolitions than the few experts in the NIST constrained by political pressure. I have a degree in physics and have read the NIST report myself and saw unwarranted assumptions, contradictions, and lack of acknowledgement of available evidence.

    • sorgfelt says:

      The orderliness of the collapse with respect to both time and space are highly improbable, even if such damage could bring the building down.

    • lew says:

      You know nothing, are a liar, or both.

      There are right answers in the world. The right answer on Building 7 isn’t even hard to see, you only have to look at the evidence.

      Your evidence is cherry-picked, and the post could be interpreted as an attempt to derail the conversation. Evidence of a troll, as that is a standard tactic.

      Either join the discussion as a knowledgable, learning individual, or go away.

    • Alvy Singer says:

      No building of that size has ever collapsed from a fire and 7 would not have been the third building to collapse in it’s own foot print from damage like that.

    • Stephen Charles Slater says:

      Would it be ” antishemitic” to wonder if Shem Penman is a Hasbara
      Israel First agent? If there is no precedent for steel constructed buildings falling at free fall and 3 fell on 911 and 1 with oxygen starved fires that were burning out causing the building to collapse and
      with eyewitnesses stating explosions proceeded collapse then perhaps a serious investigation is called for.

    • Beef Cake says:

      Coward traitor

    • Beaumont Miles says:

      Have a look at these images Shem the Penman… And unless you’ve completely sold your soul to Satan… you might consider telling whoever’s paid you to troll this site to go shov it…

    • Most of those buildings weren’t steel-framed skyscrapers like the WTC buildings. They were made out of steel-reinforced concrete. In the case of the Madrid Windsor, the parts that were only structural steel did indeed collapse. The whole building didn’t fall because there was concrete support that the WTC buildings didn’t have.

  22. Saint Howard says:

    Previous followup investigations of the assassinations of JFK and MLK accomplished very little. The worst thing that could happen with this new investigation is not that it be stymied, but that it go forward and accomplish nothing. And considering the number of cowards in our political system, that is its most likely outcome.

    • Bilbo says:

      You’re probably right, St.Howard, but there doesn’t seem to be a better option out there, does there?

    • Saint Howard says:

      Nope. This is all we’ve got. And I do hope that it works.

    • lew says:

      I agree. It has to have subpoena power, same as if it was a Congressional investigation. The max of special prosecutor at the fed level and Congressional.

      And it has to be headed by someone clean, the others were all hamstrung in some way. Someone honest, proven integrity, e.g. smart but poor although in the political system. Or get 10 people who have shown their integrity and have them choose someone. Or have Ron Paul run it, he is an honest man.

  23. Bilbo says:

    I get the impression that the process is a little more complicated. It sounds as if it goes like this:

    (1) Even though the city council conceded that there were enough valid signatures (30,000) on the first batch, they can still vote not to have it on the ballot.

    (2) A second batch of additional signatures (15,000) is then required by Sep.4th, to override the council’s decision. The second batch of over 30,000 signatures was turned in.

    (3) Now the city can challenge that this second batch doesn’t contain enough valid signatures.

    (4) And then there are still the legal challenges that must be decided in court.

    So there are two or three more hurdles to go.

  24. Michael Deloatch says:

    Like the man said, we decided to pull my finger.

  25. Gurthy Rick says:

    If the truth is released there will be a military coup lead by the enlisted leaders, the true patriots.